click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
lindsey graham and others say the designation would have allowed authorities to mine intelligence for 30 days and question the suspect about possible links to terrorist groups actively trying to harm the united states. >> the ability to have access to this suspect without a lawyer present, to gather intelligence about a future attack is absolutely essential to our national security. >> critics say the president can't do that because tsarnaev doesn't fit the legal definition of enemy combatant. there is no proof yet that he is an active member of al qaeda or the taliban. >> possibly you might be able to benefit from the time. you may not. he may clam up. it's just as likely if not more likely that you would harm or potentially harm the federal case. >> the white house decision sets a pattern, since march 2009 the obama administration changed the way the war is prosecuted. ordering the pentagon who stop using the term global war on terror. instead calling it an overseas contingency operation. the president's current cia director raised eyebrows when he declared jihad is not necessary lay b
heard in that report from mike emanuel, lindsey graham, republican from south carolina said let's go quickly. essentially we have terrorists in our midst. we might. let's find out who all of these 11 million people who have come here illegally are but does anyone think that terrorists will step to the front of the line to register? >> you know, look. this is the broader question of will, will this immigration reform bill make us safer? i think gram gram overstated the argument, you're right. -- lindsey graham. you're a terrorist attempting to be member of a sleeper cell it is unclear you will necessarily surface as this proposed new law requires you to do and make yourself known to authorities. on the other hand here is the ironic thing. in a way the bill could make us safer from this perspective. the two brothers came here when their family came here. their family came here look like they had other families already here. the parents of two the brothers had a brother, their uncle already here in the united states and they therefore appear like they might have come here, they got extr
are following today along with our top story out of boston. just yesterday senator lindsey graham warned islam is extremists are still a serious threat to our nation. >> our nation is at war, the enemy is radical islam, defined as the taliban, al-qaida, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston. jenna: we now know according to the white house that is not going to happen. senator lindsey graham republican of south carolina is a member of the judiciary committee and stepped out of a hearing to join us. nice to have you back on the program. >> thank you very much. jenna: let's talk a little bit about what you had to say about radical islam. you say yo we need to up our game. what specifically do you mean by upping our game against radical islam. >> the first thing we need to do is reject the narrative of this administration that osama bin laden is dead, the wars are receding and we are all safe. they've been trying to s
on watching that first-hand. lindsey graham says we need to up our game. we're still at war. now there's the big debate on spending right now. is this the time that to cut homeland security spending or to go after that budget or what is your view on that? because you know for two years now you've been talking about debt and deficit spending. and in this sense it all ties back together. >> well, what's driving our spending and driving our debt is the fact that there are 10,000 baby boomers like me retiring every day. 70,000 this week. 3.5 million this year. social security, medicare, there is no money there in those fund. it has all been spent. people are living longer, accessing medicaid. so the real drivers of the debt primarily are our big entitlement programs that won't survive in their current form unless we make some changes. so it has got, it really has nothing to do with what we call the discretionary spending pot. bill: understood. homeland security spending is not touched? >> we have the sequester because the president won't get serious about solving our big spending problem.
. again, on this sunday. mike, thanks. >>> south carolina senator lindsey graham is leading the charge to label the boston marathon suspect an enemy combatant. he explained why on cnn this morning. take a listen. >> when the public safety exception expires and it will soon this man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that he has knowledge of and that evidence cannot be used against him in trial. >> the american civil liberties union, aclu, opposes this, "we must not waiver from our tried and true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. denial of rights is un-american and will only make it harder to obtain a fair conviction." how will this play out politically? with me, stephen smith of "the boston globe," dave weigel and lynn sweet of the chicago sun-times. good to see you all on this sunday. lynn, let me start with you here at least. four our republican senators joined in lindsey graham's call
or not he should be charged or rather he should be classified as an enemy combatant. lindsey graham was on of the chat shows yesterday, said absolutely. this guy is not a common criminal. he was out to kill americans. what do you think? enemy combatant? >> well, there are some people who think that enemy commits an act of terrorism should be tried in our criminal carts and others think they should be designated as enemy combatants. it's complicated question and seems to me what this administration should be looking at is what is the best way to get this person -- to bring him to justice, and also the best route to insure that we get the best information we can because that information could be helpful in prehave noting additional attacks in the future and that could provide answers which could bring some measure of closure to the victims as the families. i suspect what's going on now is you're having a talk in the administration looking at all the information and deciding what's the best way to treat both of those objectives. >> steve: at this point it sounds like what the governmen
's some talk in washington, senator lindsey graham among others, saying that he should be treated as an enemy combatant, at least for a time, to get as much information as they can during the investigation. what's your feeling on that? >> well, i think, first of all, you need the right facts in order to be able to charge that. the federal government is still determining what was the motive of these two young men. are they connected to anybody else? until they do that work, until we finish this investigation, that question may even be premature, unless you have a basis for it. i do think that the federal government has had a good track record in civil cases here, understanding what forum people should be in in order to get the best information. but i think we have to be confident. i am, having worked with them this week, is that they're focused on getting information they need to bring the appropriate charges. they can always be updated. and i think that they will make the right decision based upon what they know about this investigation. >> we heard from the boston police commissi
senator lindsey graham, specifically from senator john mccain for the suspect to be treated as an enemy combatant. how is legal action at this point most likely to move forward? >> reporter: well, the obama administration would never go for that, partly as a policy matter. they have made it quite clear that civilian courts are up to the task and they think in many ways better than military tribunals which are untested. civilian courts have convicted lots of terrorism defendants. it will be a federal case. they'll charge him withes with use of a weapons of mass destruction. the maximum penalty is the death penalty. the government will have to decide whether to seek that or not. there's an additional wrinkle here. he is an american citizen. he was a naturalized citizen last year oddly on 9/11 of last year, and there is an open legal question about whether even if the government wanted to, it could declare an american citizen captured on u.s. soil as an enemy combatant. it's an untested question. the government tried to do it in the case of jose padilla several years ago and as that case w
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8